• ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think even ‘adjacent’ is giving it too much credit.

    After all, what’s happened is the literal opposite of what they wanted, while LAMF requires that the thing you supported happening is what happens, you just thought it’d happen to others and not you.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think that to make an adequate determination of that, we would have to know what they did vote for.

      Sure, we can infer it’s probably not a higher grocery bill, but that’s what they didn’t vote for.

      We need to know what they did vote for and whether it relates to the situation at hand.

      Since their motives for voting how they did are impossible to know from this individual post, we would be unable to make an adequate judgement call as to how LAMF, or LAMF adjacent this might, or might not be.

      So everything we’re saying now is conjecture and opinion.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Trump promised to do tariffs. People assumed other countries would pay the cost so that was good. It turns out they are paying the cost.

      It would be straight up LAMF if the tariffs were front of mind when they voted. But inflation was what they were most concerned with, and they either didn’t pay attention to Trump’s tariff talk or assumed it wouldn’t be them paying the tariffs… you could say it’s not directly LAMF because people don’t understand the connection between higher tariffs and higher prices, but definitely LAMF adjacent because of the widespread assumption that people in other countries would be paying the tariffs, not them.